Special elections vs. gubenatorial appointments for Congressional vacancies

[Nichlemn]

What are your opinions on how Congressional vacancies should be filled? In most states, Senators are appointed by the Governor and a special election is held to correspond with the next general election, while House seats are left vacant for usually no more than a few months before a special election.

I lean strongly towards combining elections to save money and time. Special elections can cost many millions in state funds, let alone the intangible time costs to voters. I really doubt the value added from having voters pick the guy for 6 months is worth that. (For this reason, I think Christie's decision to hold the NJ Senate election a month earlier was easily the most wasteful decision of his governorship, even worse than Bridgegate if he is responsible).

I'd have every Senate and House vacancy appointed, with special elections held at the general election in the case of Senate vacancies in seats not up that term (don't see a ton of point in 2 month terms). Perhaps there'd be some restrictions, like Wyoming's same-party pick.

[Antonio the Sixth]

None of the above. Have each candidate run alongside with an official replacement to fill the term in case of vacancy.

[TNF]

I believe that any vacancy of a post normally chosen by a democratic mandate should be filled by...a new democratic mandate. Legislators should be chosen by the people, not by the executive, and on the flipside, the executive should be chosen by the legislature, but unfortunately we have a weird elected monarchy in America that makes that not a possibility at the moment.

[Murica!]

I believe that any vacancy of a post normally chosen by a democratic mandate should be filled by...a new democratic mandate. Legislators should be chosen by the people, not by the executive, and on the flipside, the executive should be chosen by the legislature, but unfortunately we have a weird elected monarchy in America that makes that not a possibility at the moment.

Pretty much this, plus them being able to be recalled.

[Nichlemn]

None of the above. Have each candidate run alongside with an official replacement to fill the term in case of vacancy.

Sort of like a party list/vice-candidate? Interesting. Does the candidate name the replacement? (Seems like it would be rather expensive if you had primaries for all these replacements, few of whom would ever win). And what happens if the replacement won't/can't take the office? Is there a special election then?

[Antonio the Sixth]

None of the above. Have each candidate run alongside with an official replacement to fill the term in case of vacancy.

Sort of like a party list/vice-candidate? Interesting. Does the candidate name the replacement? (Seems like it would be rather expensive if you had primaries for all these replacements, few of whom would ever win). And what happens if the replacement won't/can't take the office? Is there a special election then?

I assume the candidates could name their replacement after winning the primary. And yes, a special election occurs if the replacement can't or refuses to serves (or if he/she has already taken office and then vacates it). That would significantly reduce the number of by-elections, at least.

[Indy Texas]

Why not just use the "Miss America" method where if the winner wants/has to step down, the runner-up will assume the position?

I realize this would in practice mean the seat would automatically flip parties, outside of CA and LA. But maybe that would give legislators some incentive not to ditch their district in the middle of a term for self-serving reasons. It would also be particularly entertaining if the resignee were in a safe district where the other major party didn't even contest the seat, so they wind up getting replaced by a gadfly Libertarian/Green/independent for the remainder of the term.

[RFayette]

Why not just use the "Miss America" method where if the winner wants/has to step down, the runner-up will assume the position?

I realize this would in practice mean the seat would automatically flip parties, outside of CA and LA. But maybe that would give legislators some incentive not to ditch their district in the middle of a term for self-serving reasons. It would also be particularly entertaining if the resignee were in a safe district where the other major party didn't even contest the seat, so they wind up getting replaced by a gadfly Libertarian/Green/independent for the remainder of the term.

Endorsed.

[Nichlemn]

Why not just use the "Miss America" method where if the winner wants/has to step down, the runner-up will assume the position?

I realize this would in practice mean the seat would automatically flip parties, outside of CA and LA. But maybe that would give legislators some incentive not to ditch their district in the middle of a term for self-serving reasons. It would also be particularly entertaining if the resignee were in a safe district where the other major party didn't even contest the seat, so they wind up getting replaced by a gadfly Libertarian/Green/independent for the remainder of the term.

I imagine if this was implemented, the number of seats uncontested by major parties would fall to virtually zero. Although, you could see a situation where "Independents" would run in safe seats with an elderly incumbent and campaign to be the runner-up.

[muon2]

I'd have every Senate and House vacancy appointed, with special elections held at the general election in the case of Senate vacancies in seats not up that term (don't see a ton of point in 2 month terms). Perhaps there'd be some restrictions, like Wyoming's same-party pick.

You have described the method of replacing vacancies in the IL General Assembly. Here's what the State Constitution says in article 4, section 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Statute provides for the method by which parties fill the vacancies. In general it is by the weighted vote of the chairs of county party organizations (or ward and township committeemen for Cook). The weighted vote is based on the votes cast in the most recent party primary.

[Nichlemn]

A somewhat unusual possibility, applicable to many countries: have each politician automatically pay a bond (probably garnished from their salary) which is used to pay for at least some of the costs of a special election. The idea is to deter politicians from resigning too easily, or running again when they know there's a high probability of them resigning soon. In particular, it would be a good way to counter "vanity" by-elections, like that of of David Davis in the UK, as well as Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira here in New Zealand.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For legislatures, I think simply leaving the seats vacant until the next regular election would be reasonable.  It would encourage both the parties and the voters to take the health and ethics of candidates a bit more seriously if they knew it wouldn't be easily filled if there was a problem.  At most, a provision to suspend their participation while part of an executive cabinet if making it easier for legislators to switch to the executive branch by allowing to return to their former function if their term hasn't already expired by the time they leave the cabinet.

[Vosem]

In particular, it would be a good way to counter "vanity" by-elections, like that of of David Davis in the UK, as well as Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira here in New Zealand.

Those are a thing in Westminster-system countries, but I can't think of a single case of a candidate resigning to trigger a special election they themselves run in in America. House elections are all so close to each other (every 2 years!) that it doesn't make sense.

[muon2]

For legislatures, I think simply leaving the seats vacant until the next regular election would be reasonable.  It would encourage both the parties and the voters to take the health and ethics of candidates a bit more seriously if they knew it wouldn't be easily filled if there was a problem.  At most, a provision to suspend their participation while part of an executive cabinet if making it easier for legislators to switch to the executive branch by allowing to return to their former function if their term hasn't already expired by the time they leave the cabinet.

Bur who would represent a district that might be vacant for as much as two years? The constituents have the legitimate expectation of a voice in the form of a vote in the assembly as well as an advocate to introduce and promote legislation of interest to the district.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For legislatures, I think simply leaving the seats vacant until the next regular election would be reasonable.  It would encourage both the parties and the voters to take the health and ethics of candidates a bit more seriously if they knew it wouldn't be easily filled if there was a problem.  At most, a provision to suspend their participation while part of an executive cabinet if making it easier for legislators to switch to the executive branch by allowing to return to their former function if their term hasn't already expired by the time they leave the cabinet.

Bur who would represent a district that might be vacant for as much as two years? The constituents have the legitimate expectation of a voice in the form of a vote in the assembly as well as an advocate to introduce and promote legislation of interest to the district.

Then they should elect someone who they can count on remaining in office for a full term.  At most your argument is an argument for multi-member districts.

[Nichlemn]

In particular, it would be a good way to counter "vanity" by-elections, like that of of David Davis in the UK, as well as Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira here in New Zealand.

Those are a thing in Westminster-system countries, but I can't think of a single case of a candidate resigning to trigger a special election they themselves run in in America. House elections are all so close to each other (every 2 years!) that it doesn't make sense.

True, but that same factor (elections being so close to each other) is another point against special elections for the US House. There's a smaller "democratic deficit" when you have an unelected politician holding a seat for maybe a year versus potentially several years. 

[muon2]

For legislatures, I think simply leaving the seats vacant until the next regular election would be reasonable.  It would encourage both the parties and the voters to take the health and ethics of candidates a bit more seriously if they knew it wouldn't be easily filled if there was a problem.  At most, a provision to suspend their participation while part of an executive cabinet if making it easier for legislators to switch to the executive branch by allowing to return to their former function if their term hasn't already expired by the time they leave the cabinet.

Bur who would represent a district that might be vacant for as much as two years? The constituents have the legitimate expectation of a voice in the form of a vote in the assembly as well as an advocate to introduce and promote legislation of interest to the district.

Then they should elect someone who they can count on remaining in office for a full term.  At most your argument is an argument for multi-member districts.

As Ernest implied there can be a change in administration and if there's a change in parties, there's no way to know that a representative might be given a cabinet post. I wouldn't blame the voters for not being able to predict that future.